Beck: Good for Jews that Jesus didnt come for payback
- Thread starter hermit
- Start date
Still name calling I see Do you keep doing that because you can't admit to ever being wrong?
I said ...
Historians consider Testimonium Flavianum a forgery.
The separate passage you have posted is considered to have been tampered with.
I supplied the reference to a most highly regarded theological historian scholar who shows why.
....therefore neither are undisputed
Do you have a reading impediment?
There are other historians who dispute both. Go and educate yourself.
You lie and distort distort... where have you shown that Crossan... a questionable expert to start was discussing the undisputed passage.
You have given no references just a name...
And as much as a bozo Crossan is (I was friends with a priest who knew him while he maybe a smart guy he for him to be a priest with his beliefs made him a bozo media whore) I have not seen him say the undisputed passage in Josephus is a fake.
You have given no references just a name...
And as much as a bozo Crossan is (I was friends with a priest who knew him while he maybe a smart guy he for him to be a priest with his beliefs made him a bozo media whore) I have not seen him say the undisputed passage in Josephus is a fake.
I did a little research you got your Crossan quote form wikipedia and it clearly states that Crossan was addressing the Testimonium (read the very next line) -- not the undisputed passage.
I realize -- your zeal has blocked your ability to comprehend, that there is one passage that is virtually undisputed among scholars... so your zeal forces you to focus on the disputed text.
"... For example, John Dominic Crossan has put it this way:The problem here is that Josephus' account is too good to be true, too confessional to be impartial, too Christian to be Jewish[46].
Consequently, some scholars regard at least certain parts of the Testimonium as later interpolations. In particular three passages stood out[46]:
if it be lawful to call him a man â¦
He was [the] Christ â¦
for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him
The phrase "he was the Christ" has been viewed as particularly problematic because it seems to indicate that the author thought that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. Some scholars have argued that Josephus thought that Jewish messianic promises were fulfilled in Vespasian[47], and view it as unlikely that Josephus would explain too clearly or underline too sharply the existence of alternative messianic fulfilments before Vespasian.[48] In contrast, it has been argued by some[49] that the phrase "he was the Christ" was meant as an identification only, rather than an assertion of Jesus' Messiahship, since the audience for the work were Romans of the late first century, and the earliest extant Roman writers, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, writing shortly after Josephus in the early second century, identify Jesus as Christus, rather than Jesus, without implying anything about Jesus' Messianic status.
In addition, although the standard text says "he was the Christ", a recent study by Alice Whealey has argued that a variant Greek text of this sentence existed in the 4th century â He was believed to be the Christ[50]; following Whealey's argument, the standard text would represent a corruption of the original, namely the loss of the main verb and a subsequent scribal "correction" of the prolative infinitive.[citation needed]"
I realize -- your zeal has blocked your ability to comprehend, that there is one passage that is virtually undisputed among scholars... so your zeal forces you to focus on the disputed text.
"... For example, John Dominic Crossan has put it this way:The problem here is that Josephus' account is too good to be true, too confessional to be impartial, too Christian to be Jewish[46].
Consequently, some scholars regard at least certain parts of the Testimonium as later interpolations. In particular three passages stood out[46]:
if it be lawful to call him a man â¦
He was [the] Christ â¦
for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him
The phrase "he was the Christ" has been viewed as particularly problematic because it seems to indicate that the author thought that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. Some scholars have argued that Josephus thought that Jewish messianic promises were fulfilled in Vespasian[47], and view it as unlikely that Josephus would explain too clearly or underline too sharply the existence of alternative messianic fulfilments before Vespasian.[48] In contrast, it has been argued by some[49] that the phrase "he was the Christ" was meant as an identification only, rather than an assertion of Jesus' Messiahship, since the audience for the work were Romans of the late first century, and the earliest extant Roman writers, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger, writing shortly after Josephus in the early second century, identify Jesus as Christus, rather than Jesus, without implying anything about Jesus' Messianic status.
In addition, although the standard text says "he was the Christ", a recent study by Alice Whealey has argued that a variant Greek text of this sentence existed in the 4th century â He was believed to be the Christ[50]; following Whealey's argument, the standard text would represent a corruption of the original, namely the loss of the main verb and a subsequent scribal "correction" of the prolative infinitive.[citation needed]"
"I was friends with a priest who knew him...." how very infantile you sound.
Which all goes to show the true colors of you and your hopelessly lost argument. Ricter thought you flexible. What a joke. As if you could ever be wrong.
But You are wrong. Again and again.
John Crossan (ironically JC the 'Cross man' ) , one of the most respected theological historians, a theist and a scholar, author of over 2 dozen books on Christ and Christianity , one of many historians who confirm why the so called Josephus Testimonium account is a forgery, and why your "undisputed" passage IS disputed and not reliable.
A poor writer of irrational argument such as you are , who cannot refrain from name calling, using a separate alias to feign support for yourself , decides a major figure in the fields of biblical archaeology and anthropology is a questionable expert because you don't like certain facts .
How fickle and dishonorable a so called christian like you can be, to denounce another person's lifetime of honest work, learning and christianity as a bozo media whore, just because you don't agree with him.
Your true colors stink.
You did a little research with the emphasis on little, for you clearly don't want to learn of any awkward facts.
So here's the passage you refer to, from your Bede link....
" But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned. "
and here's the Wiki quote you also gave......
" But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
...so right under your nose, in the very same reference to the same passage, you have two versions that differ so much, they could almost be saying anything, especially considering how the preceding Josephus's Testimonium is a forgery by consensus, because christians altered the text.
It appears Bede are possibly not the "reasonable apologetics" they claim to be.
So you think one single questionable mention in the whole of Josephus of a Christ, and in conflicting accounts, can anyway be historical proof that Jesus existed !?
...and particularly after knowing christians forged a previous mention!!?
Furthermore there is nothing, anywhere, any account about Jesus in the whole of ancient historical writings by a dozen and more recognized scribes like Josephus. Nor from those living at the supposed time of Jesus.
You call those reasons why you think there is historical proof that Jesus existed !!?
As if that weren't more than enough, right under your nose again in the same Wiki article you reference, it says this about the word Christ....
It is often argued that "He was [the] Christ" can only be read as a profession of faith, and Josephus was almost certainly not a Christian, instead remaining a conventional Jew; Josephus' lack of Christianity was even mentioned by early Christian writers prior to Eusebius, such as Origen[45] (as noted above). For example, John Dominic Crossan has put it this way:The problem here is that Josephus' account is too good to be true, too confessional to be impartial, too Christian to be Jewish[46].
It's also disputed in his books.
It only would require a bit of intelligence to start thinking for yourself. once you finished with the childish name calling, and with christian apologists leading you by the nose, committing forgery like they do , still misrepresenting and misquoting like they do, just to beguile the rationally challenged .
You may apologize now.
Jem told me he can not log in on this computer so he asked that I write this.
1. You stated JEM was not familiar with Crossan. JEM was aware of the Jesus movement and Crossan since the 80s. That is why he told you about the friend who was a priest. What you did not know is that the priest agreed with Crossan and the Jesus movement. You see how pathetic your responses are... you jump to conclusions which are almost always erroneous.
2. You once again make shit up.
The difference between the bede and wiki passages is inconsequential and probably due to the translators. Your point is specious.
3. Your Crossan quote... was followed by a statement indicating the statement was tied to the TF... not the undisputed passage.
The second passage is virtually undisputed and unless you wish to go to the source and get a quote from Crossan... your speculations are unfounded.
Even so... what would be your point... that it is too good to be true. That a Jewish historian would not write... the "so called Christ"... when his brother/relative James was being executed for the reason James was calling Jesus the Christ. I suppose you think James is a fabrication too?
What else the didache... the church ruins in Corinth?
You -- are wasting everyone's time with your Jesus as myth speculation.
So far you have produced one author and you have misquoted him.
1. You stated JEM was not familiar with Crossan. JEM was aware of the Jesus movement and Crossan since the 80s. That is why he told you about the friend who was a priest. What you did not know is that the priest agreed with Crossan and the Jesus movement. You see how pathetic your responses are... you jump to conclusions which are almost always erroneous.
2. You once again make shit up.
The difference between the bede and wiki passages is inconsequential and probably due to the translators. Your point is specious.
3. Your Crossan quote... was followed by a statement indicating the statement was tied to the TF... not the undisputed passage.
The second passage is virtually undisputed and unless you wish to go to the source and get a quote from Crossan... your speculations are unfounded.
Even so... what would be your point... that it is too good to be true. That a Jewish historian would not write... the "so called Christ"... when his brother/relative James was being executed for the reason James was calling Jesus the Christ. I suppose you think James is a fabrication too?
What else the didache... the church ruins in Corinth?
You -- are wasting everyone's time with your Jesus as myth speculation.
So far you have produced one author and you have misquoted him.
now thats funny.